05a10119
02-27-2001
Hazel N. Clark, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Hazel N. Clark v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A10119
February 27, 2001
.
Hazel N. Clark,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10119
Appeal No. 01A04570
Agency No. 983512
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Hazel N. Clark (complainant) initiated a request to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in
Hazel N. Clark v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04570
(November 2, 2000).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the
requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2)
the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The previous
decision found that complainant failed to establish that she was
subjected to reprisal or race discrimination when: (1) she was denied a
grade increase to a GS-8 Dental Hygienist position and (2) the agency
failed to convert her position to Title 38 status. In so finding,
the previous decision noted that the agency asserted that complainant's
position was not upgraded because complainant did not have the necessary
qualifications. The responsible management official also noted that the
dental hygienists hired under Title 38 were new appointees, hired with
the special permission of the Dental Service in an effort to compete
with higher-paying private sector positions. Complainant was not a
new appointee and therefore was not entitled to a Title 38 position.
Complainant did not present sufficient evidence to establish that these
explanations were a pretext for discrimination. In her request for
reconsideration, complainant notes that certain position descriptions
in the file are misleading and that the GS-7 Dental Hygienist position
involved the same duties as the GS-8 position. We note, however, that the
record establishes that the GS-8 position required independent practice
and dental education duties. Complainant acknowledged that she did not
meet these criterion.
After a careful review of the record, including complainant's request for
reconsideration and the agency's response, we find that complainant failed
to establish that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01A04570 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the
right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive
this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant
in the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 27, 2001
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.